From that article:
“For one of my classes, I wrote a term paper on the liquids ban,” said student honoree Tina Chaffee.

In 2006, the TSA thwarted a terrorist threat from an explosive liquid. That led to a ban of containers containing more than 3 ounces of liquids or gels.
“When I wrote my paper, I did all kinds of research,” Chaffee said. “That helped me explain the reason for the ban when I was on the (checkpoint) line. I think the passenger had a better understanding of what we do and why.”

I don't remember the TSA thwarting that plot. It would be fun to get a copy of that term paper. "Liquids over 3 ounces are bad. Liquids under 3 ounces inside a ziplock bag are harmless."

Click to expand...

Wow! -- The Nobel Committee made a huge oversight when they awarded the Nobel prize in Chemistry this morning.

Just yesterday, Sommer Gentry wrote this in the "Dubunking..." thread:

As for the “resistance” question, the TSA Privacy Officer (do I even need to say that this is a shocking oxymoron and self-contradictory title?) Peter Pietra confirmed to me when I met him that yes, the official instructions to a TSA screener are that they must put their hands directly on your genitalia in a patdown.

Just yesterday, Sommer Gentry wrote this in the "Dubunking..." thread:

Click to expand...

from the Fish article on what "Resistance" is, quote the deputy assistant federal security director:

Unfortunately screening guidelines require Officers to feel between a person’s legs, possibly under breasts and their posterior to determine if something is hidden.

Click to expand...

Nothing requires these misfits or forces them to put their hands between our legs and feel our genitalia and anuses simply because we're getting on an aircraft. They do it because they have no respect for themselves or for anyone else. You get Rugape on here slathering on the corn pone, yet the fact is, he and his buddies are doing this crap to other human beings.

Because a real terrorist is going to hide weapons, explosives and incendiaries in a body cavity, exactly where the Scope 'N Gropes don't detect anything. If the TSA was intent on real security, they would use metal detectors and explosive trace portals.

That stuff you just quoted is really some of the most perverse I've seen.

ETA: Another thought. If all of that claptrap about resistance and screener judgement is true, why isn't the answer to the question, "Will you be touching my genitals" a straightforward "maybe"? Why is the response always indignation or, as we've seen with Rugape, a dogged insistence on this vague new usage of the word "resistance"? If this was not sinister and perverted, they would be able to admit that maybe they will be touching your genitals, and they would be able to provide a justification for the "need" to do so. It would probably be a stupid justification, but they would be able to provide it.

Had a CE today on consent and an interesting comparison was made. In healthcare everything revolves around consent for treatment, tests etc. For the most part it's all informed consent either verbally or written and has the range of positives and negative outcomes. In the field and emergency setting implied consent applies with persons who are unconscious, altered mental status and a couple other special cases. This is done utilizing the standard of "if a person in the same position (but conscious) would they consent to help/treatment". Then beyond the consent it comes down to documentation as if you didn't write it down it didn't happen.

TSA on the other hand they try to claim informed/implied consent with signs that are facing the wrong way or so small even a eagle couldn't read, there own website and even screeners pulling rules out of there asses. In realistically everyone here cam see through that screen. They go do far as to cause consent by coercion (DYWTFT) which is really a bad idea as that's making terroistic threats (in some juridiction is classified as assault)which will aggravate the level of charges and personal liabilities.

The lawyer said he was surprised it hadnt happened yet. As all it will take is one person who gets assaulted (in reality is battery) and or threatened by a smurf who turns around and calls there bluff and calls in law enforcement to take them down. He also cautioned that self defense is an option but if you plan on beating a smurf you can expose yourself to some liabilities/charges. He joked if you take one smurf out one better be able to everyone of them at a checkpoint as well.

At the point of calling 911/LE one needs to stand their ground, file a criminal complaint and have named all involved, witness to, accomplice in and pressure for arrests. Then after the complaints / arrests keep the pressure on the local DA see things through. He went as far as to take the story to the media as many times as needed to keep the pressure on.

The lawyers final comments was if you like having a livelyhood, your patch and a clean record look at TSA as a "what not to do" reference.